SAMSONS GROUP OF COMPANIES vs PANTHER DEVELOPERS Ss — 2022 CLD 932 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Citation: 2022 CLD 932 ISLAMABAD
Court: Islamabad High Court
Year: 2022
Reporter: CLD
Parties: SAMSONS GROUP OF COMPANIES vs PANTHER DEVELOPERS Ss
Subject matter: Civil
Provisions referred to: S. 20; S. 39; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); Arbitration Act; Companies Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

SAMSONS GROUP OF COMPANIES VS PANTHER DEVELOPERS Ss. 20 & 39(1)(iv)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Term "sufficient cause"---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Petitioner/defendant sought rejecting of plaint but Trial Court dismissed that application and allowed respondent/plaintiff to file arbitration agreement---Validity---Provision of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. had no place in proceedings under S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Statutory test of "sufficient cause" stipulated in S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, was to be employed instead---Application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. coming before Court in proceedings under S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was to be treated as application contesting "sufficient cause" and Court's reasoning and order should center around test of "sufficient cause"---Civil Court was to order or refuse, filing of arbitration agreement under same order by which it disposed of application contesting "sufficient cause", so that it would become an appealable order under S. 39(1)(iv) of Arbitration Act, 1940---Arbitration agreement made by a company with reference to and governed by Arbitration Act, 1940, was to remain subject to Arbitration Act, 1940 and was not brought within company jurisdiction of High Court under Companies Act, 2017, for the sole reason of parties to arbitration agreement or any one of them being a company---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as there was no material irregularity in judgment nor there was any improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in Trial Court---Trial Court did what was required by law to be done within jurisdiction vested under S. 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD

2022 CLD 1051 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIMADINA BREEDING (PVT.) LIMITED VS SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY S. 1---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Envi…
2022 CLD 626 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHISINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY VS DIAMOND RESIDENCY through Owner/ Chief Executive Officer Ss. 17 & 1---Initial environmental examina…
2022 CLD 502 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIARIF BELGAUMI VS SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (SEPA) S. 17---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Environmental…
2022 CLD 233 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIRAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD. VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH Ss. 11, 13 & 14---Prohibition o…
2022 CLD 970 SUPREME-COURTSHEZAN SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SHEZAN BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED S. 5(1)---Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963 [since repe…
2022 CLD 970 SUPREME-COURTSHEZAN SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SHEZAN BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss. 6, 8(a) & 10(1)---Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English